A friend on holiday in Iceland has just met up with a ‘creationist’
The wiki definition of this bizarre belief system follows
Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
As science developed during the 18th century and forward, various views aimed at reconciling the Abrahamic and Genesis creation narratives with science developed in Western societies. Those holding that species had been created separately (such as Philip Gosse in 1847) were generally called “advocates of creation” but were also called “creationists”, as in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed over time, the term “anti-evolutionists” became common. In 1929 in the United States, the term “creationism” first became associated with Christian fundamentalists, specifically with their rejection of human evolution and belief in a young Earth—although this usage was contested by other groups, such as old Earth creationists and evolutionary creationists, who hold different concepts of creation
Young-Earth creationism fosters the belief that God created the Earth within the last ten thousand years, literally as described in the Genesis creation narrative, within the approximate time-frame of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the Ussher chronology). Most Young-Earth creationists believe that the Universe has a similar age as the Earth. A few assign a much older age to the Universe than to Earth. Some creationist thinkers attempt with Creationist cosmologies to give the universe an age consistent with the Ussher chronology and other Young-Earth time frames. Other Young-Earth creationists believe that the Earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, so that the world appears to be much older than it is, and that this appearance is what gives the geological findings and other methods of dating the earth and the universe their much longer timelines. However, this view has theological implications – an intentional appearance of age is form of false evidence and so a form of deception.
So to sum up it, as science grew it became apparent that the Adam & Eve story was arrant nonsense. So this idea grew up to try and keep the fantasy of a supreme being alive. Key to this is that he knocked-up the earth (and presumably the solar system) some 6,000 – 10,000 years back.
Obviously, since carbon dating can with a fair degree of accuracy take us a lot further back than that it is insupportable, yet there are still a huge number of people who in some way think this is The Truth. Echoes of the Burma Spitfire beliefs.
As the other religious discussion has proved even-tempered and interesting I thought I would chuck this one in for people’s opinion.
So. Complete fruitloops, or in some way I have missed, explicable?
Moggy
By: Sideslip - 4th January 2014 at 08:55
Come on, if this thread were bashing any other group….women, gays, the handicapped, the French…it would have been locked and removed by now.
You must realise there is a world of difference between attacking people because of who they are, and attacking something thats not a person, but a primitave and aggressive ideaology that influences government policy, gets forced into the minds of children, and never has to justify its claims.
By: charliehunt - 3rd January 2014 at 22:36
JG – re Steve Jones. Pleased to see someone has the sane opinion as I have had for years. A BBC favourite on the subject!!
By: Creaking Door - 3rd January 2014 at 22:15
Well, mankind is certainly a ‘miniscule blip’ in a larger ‘something’…
…but I am not sure I would go so far as to call it a ‘plan’!
By: trumper - 3rd January 2014 at 21:55
For all I know the whole of the universe could be in a petri-dish in some unimaginably large laboratory in an even more unimaginably large universe.
..
, I have often wondered that,what if we are only a minuscule blip in a larger plan.
By: Creaking Door - 3rd January 2014 at 21:15
…there are no answers partial or otherwise to the questions we continually ask:
An interesting set of questions…
…but I am not sure they are questions the majority of the population ‘continually’ ask themselves!
How did the universe start?
I think from my quick reading of this and the other ‘nothing comes from nothing’ thread that that may be the wrong question. The right question is probably ‘what was the universe like before is became what it is that we can see and investigate now?’
‘Science’ would seem to point to something known as the ‘Big Bang’. And why not? At least that seems to be based on some sort of tangible measurement and, as far as I know, that theory does not state that the universe was created from ‘nothing’.
In an infinite universe is it possible to have a finite amount of matter / energy / anti-matter? From a human perspective the only thing that would seem to actually matter is that the Sun is converting / burning a finite amount of mass / fuel into the energy that supports all life on Earth and when that is gone, it is gone!
For all I know the whole of the universe could be in a petri-dish in some unimaginably large laboratory in an even more unimaginably large universe.
How did we get here?
Good question. I suppose it boils down to one of three possibilities:
a) an accident of an infinite universe and a lot of time
b) the deliberate design of an intelligent being
c) by methods stated in one of many religions (see above)
And there, once again, my time runs out…
By: John Green - 3rd January 2014 at 21:00
Re 98
CD.
“…a great deal of opinion…”
Almost exactly so, when what you really need to understand the origins of climate change is a great deal of time; much more time than any of us have at our disposal.
By: RpR - 3rd January 2014 at 20:54
Read any of the books I listed and they will give you the answer to most of those questions, to call the works of Einstein, Darwin and Hawking fiction, well it just beggars belief, and i’m sorry but you have no capacity to understand what those scientist are saying, better if you start with Janet & john books and see how you get on with them first
Do you know John I really thought you were taking the p!ss for a laugh but after that post I realise now that you not.
Really?
Absolute answers?
Proof does not equal truth.
Just as in court, proof in science does not equal truth. No scientist will ever claim that a theory is true. What they will do is state that the evidence agrees with the theory. Of course, sometimes new evidence shows up that we didn’t have before. Then in science, as in law, [U]we will reach a new conclusion.
[/U]
Be careful though. You’d be really wrong if you thought scientists didn’t have confidence in their ideas. Knowing that something may change, and believing strongly that right now there is no better answer than the accepted one, are not mutually exclusive points of view.—- (That last point is the exact method used by confidence men to sucker marks.)
By: John Green - 3rd January 2014 at 20:46
Re 88
Of the people who stray outside of their academic comfort zone, Steve Jones, a geneticist; is a classic. It must be something akin to his pre-conceptions that underpin his man made climate change convictions.
By: Creaking Door - 3rd January 2014 at 20:34
There is a heck of a difference between ‘rate of change’ and ‘duration of change’.
Well, I cannot disagree with that statement. But if you are measuring temperature, for example, the ‘rate-of-change’ is directly related to the ‘duration-of-change’.
By: Creaking Door - 3rd January 2014 at 20:28
Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years…
Interesting.
Unfortunately the subject of climate change seems to be one that requires a great deal of knowledge to even begin to understand and whenever I can spare the time to try to understand the arguments (which is not often) all I seem to come up against is a great deal of opinion.
By: Bruggen 130 - 3rd January 2014 at 20:08
Re 77
Bruggen 130
You list a stream of authors and their works of fiction. All of these works are for the most part works of imagination, conjecture and supposition. Personally, I would not quote one sentence in support of any matters here under discussion. Rather than taking on other peoples ideas, and thus, possibly corrupting your own capacity for original thinking, confront the possibility that ultimately there are no answers partial or otherwise to the questions we continually ask:
How did the universe start?
How did we get here?
Why are we here?
What purpose is there for our existence?
Where are we going?
What is our destination – if any?.
Read any of the books I listed and they will give you the answer to most of those questions, to call the works of Einstein, Darwin and Hawking fiction, well it just beggars belief, and i’m sorry but you have no capacity to understand what those scientist are saying, better if you start with Janet & john books and see how you get on with them first
Do you know John I really thought you were taking the p!ss for a laugh but after that post I realise now that your not.
By: Moggy C - 3rd January 2014 at 19:43
Quite so
Moggy
By: charliehunt - 3rd January 2014 at 18:24
Goodness we’ve got a mob leader as a Mod. Does Webbie know?
Of all the nonsense which appears here from time to time this takes the biscuit!?
By: J Boyle - 3rd January 2014 at 18:18
But anyway, as a matter of interest, remind me what my opinion is on this topic?
You must keep taking your meds, your memory isn’t what it once was.
You’ve made it very clear your stance on religion, from that, it’s not a huge leap of faith to determine you’re hostile to creationism as well.
You knew your initial post would be “blood in the water” and draw out more anti-religion sentiments. In other words, you set the stage for more intolerance on the subject.
And that, is unacceptable behavior for a moderator. You’re supposed to keep the peace, not be a mob-leader and incite a electronic lynch mob of intolerance.
By: John Green - 3rd January 2014 at 17:20
Re 85
CD.
There is a heck of a difference between ‘rate of change’ and ‘duration of change’
By: sticky847 - 3rd January 2014 at 14:02
i think this counts as a reasonable debate because of the impact religon has had on all of us, and im happy to live in a country that allows this, my next door neighbour ( aptly called carol) believes and goes to church regularly and i do not mock her because she has a right to think as she pleases,and so do i.
By: charliehunt - 3rd January 2014 at 13:44
Hot on the heels of the “God doesn’t exist” thread, here we have another thread whose sole reason for posting is to ridicule those who disagree with the author.
I thought many of us were ridiculing the young creationists for their belief, not the other way round!
By: charliehunt - 3rd January 2014 at 13:42
The table is based on material taken from the Greenland ice core and as far as I am aware is shared by many geologists.
And I have already responded to your point about agreement with preconceptions, although I don’t think you responded to it. You, in your turn, refer to publications which support your preconception. We all do it, Moggy.
By: Moggy C - 3rd January 2014 at 13:38
Moggy, you’re a moderator and should be above such juvenile hijinks. You have made your opinions on this topic known many times before. Really, much of the membership here is acting like a group of public school bullies who set the tone of what is cool and anything/anyone they don’t like is driven away.
Have you considered that stuff like this is why most senior members no longer post here?
A moderator can perform any ‘high jinks’ he wishes within the terms of the Code of Conduct. We are not required to be impartial in our views and opinions. only in our moderation.
People come and people go – it’s the nature of fora.
Moggy
I actually launched this as a discussion on creationists and it has been sidetracked by the ‘no such thing as man-made climate change’ lobby. But anyway, as a matter of interest, remind me what my opinion is on this topic?
By: Moggy C - 3rd January 2014 at 13:32
Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century
All of which is lovely and heart warming.
But every bit of that above is based on a single publication by Don Easterbrook. A geologist, not a climate scientist, and appears unsupported by anybody else.
But as I said before, always use as your source people who agree with your own preconceptions and you will have those bolstered.
Moggy
Sign In
December 31, 2013 at 10:50 am